Pages

The new Contract - launched on the day - provides women entering a Muslim marriage written proof of their marriage and of the terms and conditions agreed between the spouses. In the absence of such proof, women have faced particular difficulties in securing the financial rights guaranteed to them under the Shari'ah upon divorce.

(..)

The Contract recognises the role Muslim women play in modern societies. Hence it does not require a 'marriage guardian' (wali) for the bride, and also makes delegation of the right of divorce to the wife (talaq-i-tafweed) automatic. This right does not affect the husband's right of divorce (talaq) but enables the wife to initiate divorce and retain all her financial rights agreed in the marriage contract. The Contract also requires "two adult witnesses of good character", rather than the traditional insistence on two Muslim men. In today's multi-cultural Britain, women and non-Muslims must be recognised as just as capable of providing a reputable guarantee that the marriage took place and of the terms and conditions the couple agreed upon.

The Contract has been prepared by the Muslim Institute and endorsed by The Muslim Law (Shari'ah) Council UK, the Imams and Mosques Council UK, Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Parliament, Utrujj Foundation, Muslim Women's Network UK, Fatima Women's Network, Muslim Community Helpline (formerly Muslim Women's Helpline) and The City Circle.

6 comments:

Aww, so sweet! Not only have the authors of this contact inherently decided that Muslim men cannot be trusted, they've also decided that Islam isn't good enough for them. The "default" marriage contract - the nikah - seemingly needs additional provisos and conditions added to it; those provided by Islam aren't enough.

Amusingly, this is being described as "equality", but even with these new changes, the woman isn't expected to provide financial support to her family; that's the man's problem.

The usual slew of MPs and feminists have crawled out to say how they support these wonderful revisions to Islam. However, the best part is that this contract wasn't the product of a drunken night, but took four years to compile. After four years, they have produced something that tarnishes the Muslim man, and doesn't for even one second address the underlying problems in some marriages. I mean, seriously, who is going to be "nice" just because some contract says so? Does that work for non-Muslims?! All that stuff about "loving, honouring, richer, poorer" still leads to a lot of battered women and broken homes. This doesn't solve anything, it just makes us look pathetic.

We do have good and bad marriages amongst Muslims, but basing a marriage on Islam, i.e. actually practicing what was proclaimed by the prophet Muhammad (saw) is the ONLY solution for a successful productive Muslim marriage.

So there it is: these people have decided that our Islam has been too Qur'anic, and our methodology based too much upon the sunnah of the prophet Muhammad (saw). They want to add in a little of their own spices to make it taste better. Yummy.

admin, first, the woman is de facto in charge of the family's financial support. Under the traditional "permission to penetrate" (that's what 'buku nikah' means, to those of you who were ignorant of that lovely tidbit - that marriage under the traditional contract is pure, unadulterated sex slavery; it actually translates more literally to 'permission to have sex/commit rape/get married/enjoy institutionalized prostitution/commit sex slavery/molest children/commit incest, since "nikah" refers to all of the above, and are all referred to with that one word in the Koran - always about sex and money, but consent is never a factor) the husband can leave and provide her with zero financial support, and she doesn't even have the right to divorce him. And don't tell me she does. I'm well-aware of how the permission to penetrate grants a woman "divorce rights." The point of the support clause is because Muslim men almost invariably reduce their women to parasitic sex slave baby factories, and as such, they ARE entitled to financial support if he should leave. The point of a marriage contract generally is because people can't be trusted to behave as expected to by civilized society. All that contract asks is that Muslim men demonstrate absolutely the most minute modicum of decency and civilization, as they so often choose not to under the traditional permission to penetrate. Since Islam has no concept of morality and its sick verison of "morality" is one which is imposed from the top-down, Muslims are the ones who believe that they can't be trusted. If they trusted themselves, Islam would simply be a personal creed and would have no political effects, no effects on the media, on one's career, on what one wears, etc., etc. It also fosters a line of thinking in which anything one can get away with is "moral," and since the traditional permission to penetrate left room for men to be absolutely intolerable sick monsters, yeah, it had to change. But don't be at all grateful that lawmakers spent years bending over backward to appease a bunch of people who they could just as easily choose to not recognize at all. Most of us are disgusted at the new contract as it is because it is too lenient. It contains nothing which actually humanzies marriage so as to make it acceptable to reasonable, decent, thinking, moral, ethical, civilized, evolved, outbred people by placing it in the context of love, partership, or even choice. It's still sex slavery. All they're asking is that you don't commit multiple felonies.

Parallel law would mean that a couple could marry either by a Muslim marriage or through civil marriage. However, in the UK, you can only marry through civil marriage. Whatever church or mosque service you do in addition is up to the couple.

After having a detailed look at the contract, i must say i was truly disgusted. Any person who looks at it, even with secular perspective can see that its hugely and unecessarily tilt in the favour of women. 1) Men must give dowery to women which would be for women to keep and since they have been granted the permission of 'Talaq al-tafwid' they are actually free to squander it in the event of divorce. Also all the gifts that bride brings with her remains her property as well as the gifts given to her from bridegroom side. Is that fair??2) The supporters of this contract says that it will ensure financial independence of both sides. If that is so why does the contract only forces the husband to financially support the family and not the wife? 3) The clause 'desert/be absent from the marital home for more than 60 days unless by mutual agreement' is clearly unnecessary and will create alot of confusions as it gives an impression that there is nothing wrong for husband and wife to stay away from their home for 60 days without any reason. 'Managing their individual activities/roles inside and outside the home by mutual consultation' seems to be good enough clause.

For every entity there is a leader and Allah has selected Husband as the leader of house. Mind you there is a difference between leader and dictator. With power comes responsibility and that is what islam expects from men.

In the british society as a whole, marriage rate is declining and people have started to prefer the 'living together' way of life. The reason for this is many a times unfair tilt of law in the favour of women. This contract will also serve the same purpose and would (eventually) encourage more muslim men to avoid marriages and fall into the sin of 'living together' way of life.

Finally, in its current form this contract would serve to actually increase divorces rather than decrease them. May Allah guide those so-called scholars of islam to review their thoughts and revise this contract. Ameen